Cleaning the Rolls, Clearing the Doubts: Lessons from Bihar’s SIR

– Lalit Garg–

The process of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll initiated by the Election Commission in Bihar has become a matter of constant debate and political attention. On the one hand, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav concluded their “Voter Rights Yatra” in Patna with a rally of opposition leaders on Monday; on the other hand, the Supreme Court issued a fresh order directing that the work of improving the voter list should continue further. This directive is indeed welcome, as it ensures that electoral reforms will not be abruptly halted. However, what remains unclear is how the entire matter will eventually unfold and how it might influence the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections. The Supreme Court clarified on Monday that voters in Bihar will be able to file claims and objections even after September 1. This directive is crucial because many political parties’ grievances have not yet been addressed fully. While most of the general public’s complaints have been resolved, for some parties, the flaws in the SIR process remain a significant electoral issue.

The opposition parties in The Indian National Developmental Inclusive (Indi Alliance) appear more interested in creating controversies around this process, seeing political advantage in such disputes. The Court has rightly observed that much of the confusion regarding the SIR of the voter list is essentially a “matter of trust.” In other words, it is the prevailing political mistrust that needs to be addressed, and for that, the political parties themselves must take proactive steps. Political leaders should heed this advice and approach the process constructively rather than obstructively. After all, electoral reform is a collective responsibility. If all parties sincerely resolve to cooperate, the possibility of malpractice in elections can be substantially reduced. The task of revising and monitoring voter lists should be a continuous effort of political organizations themselves, as it strengthens democracy and improves the integrity of elections.

At the rally marking the conclusion of the Voter Rights Yatra, opposition leaders expressed their dissatisfaction with the Commission’s process. Their skepticism about the validity of this exercise remains evident. However, it is unfortunate to politicize such constitutional procedures. Even more regrettable is the opposition’s attempt to raise the issue of alleged voter theft and to place the Election Commission itself under suspicion. From their statements, it appears opposition leaders will continue to invoke this issue repeatedly, targeting both the Election Commission and the ruling government. Such persistent negativity is not only exaggerated but also harmful to public confidence in constitutional institutions. The SIR process is both timely and sensitive. On the one hand, it is an attempt to create a cleaner and more transparent electoral roll; on the other, Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi Yadav have challenged this very process by a Voter Rights Yatra and casting doubts on a constitutional body like the Election Commission. Such actions cloud the health and stability of democracy.

In the Supreme Court hearings, opposition parties and the Election Commission were seen trading sharp accusations. Lawyers representing opposition parties highlighted flaws in the process, while the Commission’s counsel firmly argued that the real problem lay not in the procedure itself but in the mindset steeped in bias, prejudice, and obstinacy. According to him, the opposing side has developed a tendency to find fault regardless of the facts. Clearly, the Supreme Court is striving to handle this matter with fairness and prudence, but the challenge remains for the Election Commission: how effectively can it restore confidence among all parties and reassure every eligible voter? So far, the experiences of the revision process have been mixed. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, pointed out that instead of filing claims to include more voters in the list, political parties have largely filed objections demanding the removal of names. If the Commission had deleted more names, there would have been more claims for inclusion. The Congress still complains that its agents’ claims have not been adequately considered. The Commission, however, insists that many claims were not submitted in the prescribed format.

In this context, the Election Commission would do well to exercise some flexibility and verify its lists thoroughly against ground realities. If major political parties mobilize their Booth Level Agents (BLAs) actively, the voter rolls can be made error-free. This is also the intention of the Supreme Court. Prolonged disputes over voter lists are unfortunate, as they only tarnish the dignity of democracy. Notably, the Court has instructed that District Legal Services Authorities and para-legal volunteers be deployed in the revision exercise. Clearly, the process needs to be completed promptly so that elections in Bihar are not delayed.

The Election Commission is the backbone of Indian democracy. Its responsibility is not only to conduct elections but also to maintain their fairness, transparency, and credibility. Issues like faulty voter lists, duplicate names, names of deceased persons, or fraudulent registrations have often raised questions about electoral integrity. From that perspective, the SIR process is an essential corrective measure. But the question arises: was there sufficient political consultation, public awareness, and transparency before initiating such a large-scale exercise? If not, then political parties’ dissatisfaction is natural. There is no doubt that this revision exercise has heated up the political atmosphere of Bihar. The assertive stance of the Jan Suraj Party also seems likely to significantly influence the overall political scenario of the state.

Bihar today stands at a decisive juncture. The need for its development-oriented politics is paramount. Encouragingly, both the ruling and opposition parties appear to be recognizing this necessity afresh. For the people, the most beneficial outcome would be if all political forces prioritize issues like development, employment, education, and healthcare over mere disputes about voter lists. The larger question is: if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Election Commission, the opposition will find it difficult to justify its agitation. Conversely, if the Court identifies flaws in the process, then the Commission’s functioning will come under serious scrutiny. To describe the process as a direct assault on democratic rights, as some opposition leaders have done, is an exaggeration. Purifying the voter roll is not an attack on democracy but an integral part of it. If every constitutional step is given a political spin and turned controversial, it will weaken rather than strengthen democratic institutions.

The truth is that initiatives like the SIR are needed not only in Bihar but across the entire country, so that the electoral process becomes free from corruption and irregularities. Yet, its success will depend on whether it is implemented impartially, transparently, and with broad consensus. The Election Commission must ensure not only the constitutional validity of its measures but also their public acceptability. The opposition, too, should refrain from reducing this process to a mere political weapon and instead seek constructive solutions through dialogue. Democracy survives not only through voter participation but also through trust in institutions. Hence, safeguarding both the dignity and transparency of institutions is essential. The continuation of the SIR process, as mandated by the Supreme Court, is therefore a step in the right direction. It holds the promise of cleaner elections and a stronger democracy, provided all stakeholders contribute positively.